I don't expect the joy of crushing one's enemies to be stable under reflection.
I expect the joy of crushing one's enemies to be very stable since it matches the biologically hardwired incentives: you want to perpetuate your genes, not the genes of your neighbour.
crushing them probably seems less like a good idea, on the grounds that the badness of the subjective experience of suffering being crushed shouldn't depend on whether that experience gets implemented in your own skull or somewhere else (e.g., your enemy's skull)
Boggle. Have you, um, looked around at empirical reality? You can theorycraft about perfectly compassionate bodhisattvas who treat the suffering of each sentient as their own, but in the world I live in people crush each other's skulls for power and wealth on a very very regular basis (sometimes with clubs and sometimes with drones) and such practices don't seem to be going away.
The mainstay of government power -- including in the West -- is still the explicit threat of violence. If you piss off the government enough, men with guns will come and force you into compliance. These men are very clear about the difference between your suffering and their suffering.
people crush each other's skulls for power and wealth on a very very regular basis
Some people do, yeah. But I, for one, have never crushed anyone's skull for power and wealth (mine or anyone else's), and I'm not sure I know anyone who has, and the net quantity of skullcrushing per person seems to be decreasing over time despite the extremely nasty skullcrushing bonanzas of the early-to-mid 20th century.
And while my life has its sorrows and troubles, none of them seems to me to have anything to do with not getting to crush enough skulls. And, again, this...